Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

ARTICLE VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

You greatly muddy the waters with your "pure" this and that, Sang!

Mud can be distilled back into pure water

Here's where the stream runs clear, cool and pure. The action against the Federal law you dislike has to be taken at the Federal level. It takes Federal power to take down the same. End of story.

I appreciate that way of putting it. It's part of Progressive DNA: Power first, responsibility — whenever, dude…

Of course, you discount the likelihood of an Article V Constitutional amendment by the states.

Perhaps if enough states find themselves aggrieved by federal overreach the backlash will result in actual reform!

But aren't, say, California –and some others– with their "medical marijuana" laws; and Washington and Colorado -especially!- defying federal power (i.e., attempting the nullification of the federal statutory ban on cannabis?): Are they wrong to try?

....Supporters of nullification have argued that the states' power of nullification is inherent in the nature of the federal system. They have argued that before the Constitution was ratified, the states essentially were separate nations. Under this theory, the Constitution is a contract, or "compact", among the states by which the states delegated certain powers to the federal government, while reserving all other powers to themselves.

The states, as parties to the compact, retained the inherent right to judge compliance with the compact.

According to supporters of nullification, if the states determine that the federal government has exceeded its delegated powers, the states may declare federal laws unconstitutional.

Nullification supporters argue that the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional not only is inherent in the concept of state sovereignty, but also is one of the powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.....

.....Perhaps if enough states find themselves aggrieved by federal overreach the backlash will result in actual reform!

.....The NRA or some other group feels the the gun law is in violation of the Second Amendment, they can sue in Federal Court in addition to the other option....

for if the law isn't enforced, how much of a law is it?

Federal agents made multiple arrests Friday in connection with high-profile raids on Colorado's medical marijuana industry last fall, and a lawyer for one of the raid targets confirmed his client has been indicted.

U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Jeff Dorschner said the arrests were carried out by the Drug Enforcement Administration, IRS Criminal Investigations and the Diplomatic Security Service. [/url]

In spite of the "nullification" of Federal law. That's also part of what I mean by inviting more Federal agents. If the state won't enforce the law, somebody else will.

We only have to look as far as Wikipedia to see nullification's abyssal  track record. Nullification Theory was debunked 185 years ago. From the article:

Quote

In the Webster-Hayne debate in the Senate in 1830, Daniel Webster responded to this nullification theory by arguing that the Constitution itself provides for the resolution of disputes between the federal government and the states regarding allocation of powers. Webster argued that the Supremacy Clause provides that the Constitution and federal laws enacted pursuant thereto are superior to state law, and that the Article III gives to the federal judiciary the power to resolve all issues relating to interpretation of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the federal courts therefore have the last word, said Webster. Webster said that the Constitution does not give the states a power of constitutional interpretation, and that any such power would result as many conflicting interpretations of the Constitution as there are states.[55] Therefore, said Webster, under the Constitution, the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.

In Missouri's case, it's especially incredulous to find a legal threat against Federal Agents upholding the law. A state cannot arrest an agent of the Federal government for doing his job. That's absurd.

Just a little more from the article:

Quote

President Andrew Jackson denied that South Carolina had the power to nullify federal statutes, and prepared to enforce federal law forcibly if necessary. In his Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, Jackson said: "I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed."

He was right. I already pointed the letter of the constitution he referred to. "...incompatible with the existence of the Union" is interesting. If states really had the power to override the Constitution and the laws of the US, are we even still a unified country? If states could nullify gun laws, it would a victory for gun rights. Granted.  But the article does hint at a darker side to it, ie states attempting to nullify Federal law by continuing apartheid. I think of a million nightmare scenarios involving free speech, freedom of religion/freedom from religion, worker health and safety laws, etc. So this is actually a good thing.

President Andrew Jackson denied that South Carolina had the power to nullify federal statutes, and prepared to enforce federal law forcibly if necessary.

No Enforcement  =  No Law ...... Period.

.........That's life.

 

Cest la vie

BTW, I'm against snipers. Even in war there's moral obligations. Specially in war, should I say.

Time to try Portuguese made G3.

I know this is a bit off topic, but I completely disagree, so what is your moral argument?

What is the difference of shooting an enemy within 100 yards, as opposed to a highly selective shot originating at say 1000+ yards.

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-09-02, 14:03:23

Time to try Portuguese made G3.

Why does the wiki page say it's a German/Spanish developed gun? (With many countries adopting it for manufacture.) The AK-47 has many copies too. Is the Portuguese version unique in some way or just another copy?

copies or originals?

For some reason, we - those who have military academies, mine being much older than yours of course - are instructed to the morals of war ..........  At 1000+yards you play video games. Your "enemy" doesn't even realizes that he's dead. Do you want a medal for that? Not surprised if you received it.

The only good enemy is a dead enemy

Winning matters.

Woodrow Wilson once said […]

It just frustrates me that some advocates of small government will do things to limit Federal power, but don't seem to understand that by trying to apply pure subsidiarity you can create larger total government and actually create more total laws. It's definitely a delicate balancing act when using Federal power to limit total government control.

Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the state governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the state generally; the counties with…local concerns, and each ward direct the interests within itself…. This would form a gradation of authorities, standing each on the basis of law, holding everyone to its delegated share of powers, and constituting truly a system of fundamental balances and checks for the government.

To Joseph Cabell, Feb. 2, 1816; Koch and Peden, eds., Selected Writings of Jefferson, pp. 603-604.

you (presumably) in Tennessee?